Nashville Trial Lawyer Bloghttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com
Published by Tennessee Injury Lawyer — Nashville Business Litigation Attorney — Law Office of David S. Hagy, PLCMon, 02 Oct 2017 20:58:00 +0000en-UShourly1118656151NashvilleInjuryLawyerBlogComhttps://feedburner.google.comTalk to a Tennessee Trial Lawyer Before You Sign a Release of Claims in Your Injury Casehttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2017/10/talk-tennessee-trial-lawyer-sign-release-claims-injury-case.html
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:58:00 +0000https://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/?p=173If you have been injured in an auto or truck crash in Tennessee, you should never sign a release of claims or other document presented to you without first consulting an attorney. Although successful on appeal, one injured driver’s recent case is a cautionary story in this area. He made a major decision in signing a “Release of All Claims” document after relying only upon the statements of people who worked for the trucking company that was potentially liable for his damages. This choice almost cost him his entire chance to pursue his personal injury case — and may yet even after the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the initial decision to throw out his case.

The origin of this case was a March 2012 accident in the Chattanooga area. A semi driven by the defendant jackknifed, which caused the truck to slam into the plaintiff’s vehicle, which, in turn, caused the plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle and crash into a barrier wall. At the scene of the accident, the truck driver gave the injured driver a document and asked him to sign it. The document allegedly was designed to release the truck driver’s employer from any and all liability associated with the accident.

The injured driver did not sign the document. This was a wise move. Whenever someone is asking you to sign a document that may reduce or even eliminate your legal rights or options, it is almost never a good idea to sign without consulting legal counsel first. That is especially true when you’re still at the scene of the accident and, whether due to your injuries or just the general trauma of being involved in an accident, are probably stressed out, hurting, distracted, and generally not focused on the “fine print” of a contract’s language.

On the day of the accident, the trucker’s employer hired an investigator. Within a few days, the investigator contacted the man and discussed a possible settlement between him and the trucking company. The settlement would have paid for the value of the injured man’s car, three days’ worth of lost wages, and $510 toward a rental car. The total of the proposed settlement was $9,785. Note that nothing in this $9,785 covered anything regarding medical bills or follow-up treatment.

Ultimately, the figure was rounded up to $10,000, and the injured driver agreed to that settlement. Two days after the crash, the injured driver and his wife both signed a “Release of All Claims” document that the trucking company required before issuing the $10,000 settlement payment.

According to the injured driver, he believed that the settlement into which he had entered with the trucking company covered only his claims for property damage, lost wages, and rental car expenses. Allegedly, that belief was supported by the investigator, who told him that the trucking company “is still responsible for your medical expenses.”

Two months later, the injured driver hired an attorney who later filed an action for his personal injury damages, seeking $250,000 in compensation. The trucking company sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the signed release prevented the lawsuit.

At that point, the plaintiff raised the issue of the alleged fraudulent inducement that led him to agree to sign the release agreement. The defense sought summary judgment in its favor, arguing that the plaintiff waited too long to make his fraud in the inducement assertion. The trial judge agreed and entered a summary judgment for the trucking company.

The appeals court disagreed and revived the plaintiff’s case. That court explained that Tennessee law does not have a “bright line” standard for what is or is not “prompt” in the context of making a fraudulent inducement claim. It is different in each case, and it “requires a consideration of the specific circumstances of each case.” In earlier cases, delays of six and 10 months were considered acceptable, while delays of 36 months or several years in other matters either were not or were analyzed negatively by the courts.

In this case, the plaintiff potentially learned of the alleged fraud from his own insurance company in April 2012. In June 2013, he amended his complaint document for the first time to allege that he was fraudulently induced into the settlement. For the purposes of summary judgment, 14 months was a short enough delay that the trucking company was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The case was then remanded for further proceedings, and it is unclear whether it will be dismissed again after further evidence is taken.

Trucking companies understand that accidents involving “big rigs” can inflict significant damage, which means significant potential liability for those trucking companies. To that end, they may work very hard to try to reduce or eliminate potential damages claims. Don’t shortchange yourself. Talk to a lawyer first. The truck accident lawyers at the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PLC have been helping injured people for many years. We understand the “ins and outs” of trucking accident cases and can help you make a truly informed decision about any proposed settlement or release.

]]>173Applying the Right Statute of Limitations to Your Lawsuit Against Your Uninsured Motorist Insurer in Tennesseehttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2017/09/applying-right-statute-limitations-lawsuit-uninsured-motorist-insurer-tennessee.html
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 19:49:11 +0000https://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/?p=208Pursuing damages for the harm you suffer in a Tennessee auto accident can take many twists and turns. Sometimes, it may center solely on litigating against the driver who caused your accident. Other times, however, the case can be more complicated, involving legal action against insurance companies, including your own insurer. In a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case the plainitff was able to defeat her insurance company’s claims that she waited too long to sue it. The ruling reaffirms that people injured in auto accidents who sue their insurers are asserting contract claims, rather than personal injury tort claims, which means that the law gives them a six-year, rather than a one-year, limitations period in which to act. However, despite this result which benefited the injured plaintiff, there are numerous pitfalls here.

The plaintiff in this case was injured in a May 2011 auto accident. The woman sued the other driver for his alleged negligence in causing the accident. Sometimes, in an auto accident case, the problem isn’t necessarily with the merits of the case or about marshaling the evidence needed to win; it is with simply locating and hauling into the court the defendant and then finding an applicable insurance policy.

That was the problem the plaintiff here faced. For 15 months, she tried to get the defendant served with the lawsuit. Eventually, the process server determined that the defendant could not be found. At that point, the plaintiff moved in a new direction, amending her lawsuit to add an additional defendant: the auto insurance company with which she had uninsured motorist coverage. The plaintiff’s insurer was served on July 31, 2013.

]]>208Proving Different Types of Damages in Your Tennessee Auto Accident Casehttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2017/09/proving-different-types-damages-tennessee-auto-accident-case.html
Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:06:39 +0000https://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/?p=201In auto accident cases, Tennessee law may allow you to recover damages for many different reasons. Damages can include medical expenses, past and future loss of wages or earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering, permanent impairment, and the loss of the ability to enjoy life, among other things. Understanding which types of damages may be available to you and which kinds of proof you need to secure such a damages award are just some of the many ways that an experienced Tennessee injury attorney can help you.

A case in which many of these types of damages were at issue was recently decided by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The plaintiff was a Middle Tennessee driver who was injured in a June 2013 crash. The crash was a result of the other driver’s running a red light and T-boning the plaintiff’s car on the driver’s side; she was taken to a hospital and diagnosed with a strain of her thoracic spine and a knee contusion. Experiencing additional pain and muscle spasms, she went to another hospital and, later, began treatment with a chiropractor, from whom she received 39 treatments.

The following year, the woman sued the at-fault driver, and, since that driver was acting in the scope of his employment when he hit her, the woman also sued the employer. In this case, the employer admitted liability, and the trial revolved solely around the extent of the plaintiff’s damages. At the trial’s end, the judge awarded the plaintiff $271,378, making separate awards (as is permitted under Tennessee law) for past medical expenses, past lost wages, lost future earnings, past and future pain and suffering, past and future loss of enjoyment of life, and permanent impairment. The defendant appealed almost all of the areas of damages awarded, and the appeals court reversed several of the damage awards for further consideration. The case makes clear that each item of damages is separate, and must be separately supported by evidence specific to the damages at issue.

]]>201Tennessee Court Upholds $250K Damages Award for Grocery Store Customer Injured in Bathroom Fallhttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2017/06/tennessee-court-upholds-250k-damages-award-grocery-store-customer-injured-bathroom-fall.html
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 20:25:31 +0000https://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/?p=112Personal injury cases that do not involve large awards for medical expenses or loss of income (earning capacity) may nonetheless result in a substantial verdict. There are many steps to achieving a truly positive result in your personal injury case, but conveying the extent to which an injury or disability has affected your day-to-day life — even in the absence of substantial economic damage — can result in a large verdict. In the case of one man recently injured in a grocery store bathroom, he and his legal team presented strong enough evidence to convince a jury, and the Court of Appeals, that he should receive a quarter-million dollar judgment for the harm he suffered.

The plaintiff, in February 2012, went to a Maryville, Tennnessee grocery store with his wife. The man stopped to visit the store’s men’s room. In the course of rising from the toilet, he lost his balance and reached for the handrail. As he grabbed it, the handrail came away from the wall, and the man fell, hitting his head. The evidence showed that the grocery store was aware of the defective handrail and thus liability was not strongly contested.

After the incident, the man experienced substantial problems with symptoms that included migraines, light sensitivity, nausea, and vomiting. He presented testimony from his treating physicians regarding his headaches and related problems, and was able to tie those conditions to the head injury he sustained in the fall. The plaintiff asked the jury to award him $250,000 in compensatory damages. The jury returned its verdict: the defendant was found liable and the plainitff was owed damages in the amount of $350,000. But, since the plainitff had only asked for $250,000, the judge entered the judgment of liability but reduced the damages award to $250,000 pursuant to Tennessee law which restricts jury awards to the amount sought in the pleadings.

The store appealed the $250,000 damages award as unreasonably large. In a case in which a defendant attacks a damages award on appeal, even after the trial judge has reduced the award “to conform to the complaint,” the law requires the defendant to show that there was “no material evidence” to support an award of that size. In other words, in situations like this, it comes down to the strength of the evidence that has been provided to the courts.

In this case, the plaintiff had proof that he had been a successful TV and video producer but was forced to abandon that career field because his accident-related injuries made performing that type of work impossible (bright lights). Even though the plaintiff found a new career and success in it, the evidence showed that he still struggled with migraines intermittently and had to retreat to a “cool, dark space” until the migraine pain passed. Having put this evidence on the record in his trial, it was impossible for the Court of Appeals to say that there was “no evidence” supporting the $250,000 award, so the trial court’s judgment stood.

Every step of the civil litigation process, from pre-trial to trial to post-trial, can be tricky and contain pitfalls that can stymie you in your pursuit of justice for the harm you’ve suffered. That’s why you need experienced personal injury counsel representing you at every step along the way. The diligent Tennessee premises liability attorneys at the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PSC have been providing skilled and determined advocacy for injured people in Tennessee for many years and are here to discuss how we can help you with your case.

]]>112Tennessee Law’s Requirement of ‘Conspicuous’ Disclaimer of Implied Warranty Rights Revives Small Business’ Breach Casehttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2017/06/tennessee-laws-requirement-conspicuous-disclaimer-implied-warranty-rights-revives-small-business-breach-case.html
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:02:45 +0000https://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/?p=120A small business in Northwest Tennessee that purchased a piece of equipment, only to lose that equipment in a fire, got good news from a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling in Smith v. Timberpro Inc., when that court gave the buyer a renewed chance to pursue legal action against the seller. The key to the ruling was Tennessee’s requirement that to create a valid disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness the disclaimer must be conspicuous, which the disclaimer in this case was not because it was not actually included in the sales contract but in a separate document.

The owner and operator of a Tennessee Ridge logging business inked a deal with a Michigan harvester dealer for the purchase of a $481,000 harvester with a harvesting head. The contract included a reference to the limited warranty for the harvester.

Three years later, the harvester was destroyed in a fire. The buyer sued the Michigan seller, as well as a Huntingdon, Tennessee entity that had helped familiarize the buyer with the harvester (and had referred the buyer to the Michigan seller). The complaint included multiple claims for breach of warranty as well as breach of contract, claiming that defective wiring had caused the fire.

The seller argued that the limited warranty — a warranty to which the buyer allegedly agreed when he signed the purchase contract –- had a duration of only one year. That one-year period expired before the fire, so the buyer had no case, the defendant seller contended, in asking the court to throw out the matter on summary judgment. The buyer claimed that he didn’t receive a copy of the warranty, so he wasn’t bound by its one-year time limit.

The trial judge sided with the defense, and the buyer appealed. The appeals court revived the buyer’s case against the seller from Michigan, reversing the grant of summary judgment. The seller argued unsuccessfully that the disclosure of the existence of the warranty on the sales order was sufficient notice to the buyer. Tennessee law, however, requires that the disclosure of the disclaimer of implied warranties – as the limited warranty purported to do in this case – must be conspicuous, and that conspicuousness requirement demands something more than “a contract’s mere reference to the disclaimer in another document, regardless of whether the disclaimer is conspicuously printed in the document in which it appears.” Without clear proof of satisfaction of the conspicuousness requirement, there was no proof that the buyer disclaimed the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness that exist in Tennessee.

As a small business, the contractual dispute cases involving your company may not be worth millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, but they are vitally important to your business. Here, the dispute was over a $481,000 machine, an amount that might be insignificant to a huge corporation but devastating to a small company. The dedicated Tennessee business litigation attorneys at the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PSC understand that. We have been helping small businesses with their breach of contract, breach of warranty, and other litigation needs for many years and are ready to help you with yours. We specialize in taking cases on a modified hourly or contingent fee basis so that the legal costs of pursuing litigation do not overwhelm the resources of your business.

]]>120Trucker Unable to Recover for Injuries Suffered While Asleep in Passenger’s Seathttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2014/05/trucker-unable-to-recovery-for-injuries-suffered-while-asleep-in-passengers-seat.html
Wed, 21 May 2014 22:49:47 +0000http://nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.lawblogger.net/2014/05/21/trucker-unable-to-recovery-for-injuries-suffered-while-asleep-in-passengers-seat/A truck driver’s suit seeking compensation from her trucking company’s insurer for injuries she suffered while asleep in the passenger seat of a company truck proved unsuccessful. The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that the driver was an employee of the trucking company at all times, including while she slept, and the insurer’s policy exception for employee injuries permitted it to refuse the driver’s claim.

April Miller suffered serious injuries while riding as a passenger in a truck owned by Refa Watley Trucking. Miller and another trucker, Lewis Watley, were sharing driving responsibilities for hauling a load from Tennessee to New York when Watley was involved in an accident that caused Miller’s injuries. Miller was asleep at the time of the accident.

In accordance with federal law, all trucking companies are required to carry public liability insurance. However, federal regulations do not require trucking companies to carry insurance covering injuries suffered by employees. Miller brought her claim against the trucking company’s insurer, but the insurance company refused to reimburse her for her damages. The trucking company’s insurer, Northland Insurance Company, concluded that she was an employee, and its policy with the trucking company specifically excluded injuries suffered by employees.

Miller claimed that, since she was sleeping when the accident took place, she was not acting as an employee at the time. She also maintained that she was an independent contractor, not an employee of the trucking company. The trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of the insurance company.

Miller appealed, but to no avail. The appeals court explained that the trucker’s independent contractor argument could not succeed because, even if she met the standard of an independent contractor under Tennessee law, federal standards pertaining to truckers identified her as an employee. Federal regulations classify anyone, other than an employer, who operates a commercial vehicle in the course of his or her job duties as an employee.

The court also rejected the trucker’s claim that she was outside the scope of her employment when the accident happened. Even though Miller was asleep at the time of the crash, she was still in the course of operating a commercial vehicle according to the law. Previous courts considering this issue consistently ruled that drivers who are part of two-person teams are considered to be in the course of operating the truck even when not driving, including time spent sleeping.

Sleeping in the cab of a commercial truck while functioning as the non-driving half of a two-person driving team was not the same as being asleep at home, the court explained. Instead, all of each driver’s activities were indispensable parts of using two-person teams to maintain continuous operation of the truck, since federal trucking regulations require drivers to drive for at most 10 hours and then take a break of at least eight hours. Based upon this standard, regardless of whether she was sleeping or driving, Miller was acting as an employee of the trucking company for the entire duration of the trip, so the insurance company was not obligated to compensate her.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident involving a commercial truck, you should seek representation from an attorney familiar with and experienced in the unique aspects of these cases. Contact the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PLC today. We can offer you the benefit of our considerable knowledge and skill regarding truck accident cases,and help you get the recovery you deserve.

]]>100Sports Bar Not Liable for Fatal Shooting Carried Out by Patronhttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2014/05/sports-bar-not-liable-for-fatal-shooting-carried-out-by-patron.html
Tue, 20 May 2014 05:02:13 +0000http://nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.lawblogger.net/2014/05/20/sports-bar-not-liable-for-fatal-shooting-carried-out-by-patron/A sports bar where a patron abruptly pulled a gun and killed a karaoke operator escaped liability to the dead man’s wife for failing to prevent the attack. Tennessee law imposes a duty on business owners to protect their patrons only from risks that are foreseeable. Because the bar and its neighborhood did not have a history of crime, and the shooter did not have a history of violence, his sudden outburst was not foreseeable and the bar had no duty to protect the dead man, the Tennessee Court of Appeals decided.

Mr. and Ms. Goeser ran a karaoke business in the greater Nashville area, and Hank Wise became a regular at the Goeser’s shows. Over time, Wise developed a fixation on Ms. Goeser. At a karaoke event at a sports bar in South Nashville in April 2009, Ms. Goeser became uncomfortable by Wise’s presence, as the man normally only attended downtown Nashville events. She approached the bar’s manager about Wise, and the manager asked the patron to leave. Wise removed a gun from his jacket and shot Mr. Goeser in the head several times, killing him instantly.

The wife sued the bar for negligence causing her husband’s death. According to the wife, the bar failed to protect her husband by having inadequate security and inadequately training its employees. The trial court concluded that Wise’s actions were not foreseeable and therefore the bar was not liable for the husband’s fatal injuries.

The appeals court reached the same result. Business owners have a duty to ensure the safety of their patrons, but that duty extends only to protection against foreseeable dangers. The murder that occurred at the sports bar was not foreseeable and the owners owed Goeser no duty to act to prevent it.

The court pointed out that Tennessee does not have a clear-cut standard for when a risk is foreseeable, but if a business experiences a large volume of crime or is located in a high-crime area, then that increases the foreseeability of harm happening to a patron and raises the possibility of a duty on the part of the business owner.

The sports bar where Wise shot Goeser was neither. The evidence presented to the trial court indicated that the business was located in a safe neighborhood and that the bar had experienced no burglaries or thefts in the previous two years. The wife offered no proof that the bar or its surroundings were unsafe. Additionally, the bar manager testified that she had never seen Wise in the establishment before and that the Goesers had never mentioned him to her before the fatal night.

Additionally strengthening the bar’s argument was the wife’s deposition testimony. She indicated that she felt more irritated than threatened by Wise when she asked the bar manager to ask Wise to leave and that the man’s behavior offered no warning of impending violence until he drew his weapon. If the Goesers (who knew Wise) could not foresee the man’s homicidal outburst, it was clearly not reasonable to demand that the bar staff (who had never encountered Wise) anticipate such an outcome.

Seeking civil justice for harm incurred during a criminal act, such as being the victim of violence at a restaurant or store can be a complicated case, as Tennessee law does not have a “bright line” where liability starts. If you’ve been injured because a business lacked adequate security, or otherwise improperly failed to protect you, reach out to the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PSC today.

]]>102Nursing Home Doorway’s Successful Inspections, Absence of Dangerous History Help Facility Avoid Liability for Visitor’s Injuryhttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2014/05/nursing-home-doorways-successful-inspections-absence-of-dangerous-history-help-facility-avoid-liabil.html
Sun, 18 May 2014 20:24:08 +0000http://nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.lawblogger.net/2014/05/18/nursing-home-doorways-successful-inspections-absence-of-dangerous-history-help-facility-avoid-liabil/The daughter of a nursing home patient sought unsuccessfully to hold her father’s facility liable for the injuries she suffered when a facility worker opened a door and injured her. The woman’s case fell apart after the nursing home showed that the doors in question had, over a period of several years, no history of causing other injuries and that the doors passed all their government inspections. The woman’s proof, centered around a sign on the door and the absence of a window, showed only that an injury was possible, not likely, as required by the law.

Arlene Christian was exiting the Good Samaritan Nursing Home in Antioch after visiting her father at the facility when a worker, approaching from the opposite direction, unwittingly opened a windowless door into the woman, injuring her. Christian sued the nursing home for her injuries, alleging that several acts of negligence led to the accident. The woman sought $375,000 plus past and future medical expenses.

The nursing home asked the court to throw out the case, contending that the doors in question were not a dangerous condition, so it should not be liable for the woman’s injuries. The trial court agreed, concluding that the nursing home sufficiently demonstrated that the doors were not a dangerous condition and had no defects at the time of the accident.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld that judgment. In cases like Christian’s, a premises owner seeking summary judgment must first show that the doors “did not constitute a dangerous condition and did not pose a foreseeable risk of harm.” The nursing home established this element by introducing testimony from several employees, who had worked for the nursing home from six to 12 years, and each of whom knew of no other instances of a person suffering injury as a result of the doors in question. The doors were also inspected weekly and compliant with the applicable Davidson County Health Department ordinances.

This evidence then placed the burden on Christian to show the court something that would indicate that a legitimate factual dispute existed regarding the doors’ safety. The woman pointed to the absence of windows in the doors and the presence of sign warning users to exercise caution when opening the doors. This was not enough, the court decided. The law requires an injured person to show a probability of injury in order to demonstrate the existence of a dangerous condition. Christian’s evidence only showed a possibility, not likelihood, of injury, and that was insufficient.

Visitors to a facility open to the public have a right to expect the property owner to maintain that facility in a way that leaves it free from dangerous conditions and unreasonable risks of harm. Successfully pursuing a court action to recover for your damages involves more than just having suffered harm; it also requires understanding what information you must present to the court, and then obtaining that information. For knowledgeable and zealous representation as you pursue your injury claim, reach out to the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PSC.

]]>92Rear-Ending Driver Not Liable for Accident Along Parkway Entrance Ramphttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2014/05/rear-ending-driver-not-liable-for-accident-along-parkway-entrance-ramp.html
Thu, 15 May 2014 17:22:15 +0000http://nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.lawblogger.net/2014/05/15/rear-ending-driver-not-liable-for-accident-along-parkway-entrance-ramp/Many people believe that, in a rear-end collision, the rear driver is always at fault for accident. While this is very often true, it is not the case every time. The Tennessee Court of Appeals decision in Hicks v. Prahl illustrates one case where the rear driver was not liable, and serves as a reminder that, if you’re involved in a vehicle collision, do not assume you know the outcome regarding another driver’s legal liability (or lack thereof) just because of things you’ve heard frequently repeated by laypeople.

Marsha Hicks and Jennifer Prahl were driving on the entrance ramp to the Pellissippi Parkway in Knox County when Prahl rear-ended Hicks at a low speed. Hicks claimed that, at the time of the accident, she had slowed down to navigate the sharp curve in the ramp. Prahl asserted that, in fact, Hicks had totally stopped, despite a complete absence of vehicles in front of Hicks on the ramp.

Hicks sued Prahl for her medical injuries. Prahl argued that she was not negligent and that Hicks’s cell phone use at the time contributed to the wreck. The jury found Prahl not negligent and threw out Hicks’s case. Hicks appealed, attacking several aspects of the trial. She argued that the evidence could not allow a reasonable jury to determine that Prahl was not negligent and that the court never should have allowed Prahl to put forward evidence of Hicks’s contributing fault (by using her cell phone.) Even if she was talking on her cell phone and did stop her vehicle, Prahl was clearly negligent by following too closely and failing to operate her vehicle under control, Hicks maintained.

The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by these arguments. Once a jury enters its verdict, an appeals court must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to the way the jury decided. In Hicks’s case, the evidence showed that there were no cars in front of Hicks and that the ramp’s sharp curve would require slowing down but not stopping. The volume of traffic on the parkway itself at the time of the accident was heavy. Given the volume of vehicles on the parkway, Prahl was reasonable to look away from Hicks’s vehicle to assess the traffic situation and to expect that Hicks would continue proceeding forward down the unobstructed ramp. As a result, the jury had enough evidence to decide that Prahl was operating her car reasonably and was not negligent when she struck Hicks.

Once the trial court found Prahl not negligent, the issue of Hicks’s comparative fault (by using her cell phone) was irrelevant. Comparative fault is a defense that, when a defendant is found liable, can reduce that person’s liability based upon the misconduct of the injured person. In Hicks’s case, the jury found Prahl not negligent, so there was no liability to reduce and the trial court’s decision to allow the comparative fault defense regarding Hicks’s cell phone use had no impact on the outcome.

Most people drive vehicles and many people have certain “facts” they think they know about driving and car accidents. Don’t make the mistake of assuming you know more about the law of negligence regarding car accidents than you really do. If you’ve been injured in a car wreck, talk to the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PSC today. We can give you a clearer picture of how the law fits with the facts of your case and help you seek recovery from those liable for your injuries.

]]>99Appeals Court Upholds Jury Verdict Assessing 50-50 Fault Split in Two-Car Accidenthttps://www.nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.com/2014/05/appeals-court-upholds-jury-verdict-assessing-50-50-fault-split-in-two-car-accident.html
Tue, 13 May 2014 19:47:04 +0000http://nashvilleinjurylawyer-blog.lawblogger.net/2014/05/13/appeals-court-upholds-jury-verdict-assessing-50-50-fault-split-in-two-car-accident/A driver who was displeased with a jury verdict finding her 50% at fault for an auto accident where she was injured failed to achieve a better result on appeal. The Tennessee Court of Appeal stated that it can throw out jury verdicts only if they run contrary to all of the evidence at trial and that, in this driver’s case, both she and the other driver offered valid evidence of the opposing driver’s fault, which gave the jury ample grounds for finding the two drivers equally to blame for the accident.

Leona Salyer and Courtney Linnen were involved in an auto accident in Sullivan County when each driver attempted to turn onto a westbound road from opposite directions of Highway 11-E. Salyer was executing a right turn from the southbound direction, while Linnen was turning left from the northbound direction.

Salyer sued Linnen for her injuries. At trial, the Bluff City police chief testified that Linnen told him that she hit Salyer. Each driver testified that she never saw the other until the collision. Linnen denied telling the police chief that the accident was her fault. Salyer claimed she was in front of Linnen but could not explain how her car’s damage was in front while Linnen’s was in the back. The police chief’s report was excluded from evidence at trial.

At the trial’s conclusion, the jury found each driver 50 percent at fault for the accident. Salyer appealed this outcome, claiming that the jury’s decision was contrary to the evidence presented at trial and that the court wrongfully excluded the police chief’s report regarding the accident.

Salyer’s appeal was unsuccessful. The problem she faced was that overturning a jury verdict requires meeting a very high burden. If any material evidence exists that would support the verdict, the jury’s decision stands.

In Salyer’s case, each driver testified that she had a green light when she began making her turn, and each driver stated that she did not see the other driver until the impact. Based upon this evidence, the jury had enough proof to decide that each driver was equally at fault for making her turn and striking the other.

Additionally, the exclusion of the police report did not warrant overturning the outcome. Both sides agreed at trial that the report was inadmissible, and the court allowed the police chief to use the report to refresh his memory when he testified.

In the end, Salyer had presented enough evidence from which the jury could have found Linnen entirely at fault, but Linnen also offered valid proof showing that Salyer shared responsibility. The jury was within its rights as the trial’s fact-finder to credit Linnen’s evidence and decide each woman was 50% at fault.

Pursuing recovery for your injuries resulting from an auto accident involves acting promptly to ensure that you can secure and then present all the evidence that best supports your case. For representation from an attorney familiar and experienced in auto accident cases, consult the Law Office of David S. Hagy, PSC today.
Reach us online or call (615) 515-7774.